Assuming that Shakespeare is trying to make a statement, is The Tempest a satire or a serious representation of colonialism? Use the language of the play and the portrayals of the characters to explain your answer.
I believe that The Tempest was a serious representation of colonialism. First off, this play was written during the end of Shakespeare’s life when he was writing more romantic and tragicomic (tragedy plays with a cheerful ending). Shakespeare by this time in his career was not writing anymore comic plays. The Tempest after reading it falls right into the tragicomic plays. Then just from a textual stand point, there is Ariel and Caliban who are both seen as natives of the island, and Prospero is seen as the explorer/ colonist of the island. While Ariel was the first one on this island, Caliban and Ariel are both seen in the eyes of the colonist as a native because they are seen to be savage (not so much Ariel), uneducated and unsophisticated, and uncivilized. Caliban is a more the iconic savage in this play because he is crude, tries to rape, and is always characterized as some sort of beast. However, Ariel has to characterized as a native as well because he was on the island first even before Caliban. While he does not have much characteristics of Caliban, he must just as well be called a native. Thus when Prospero came to the new land, he tried to civilize Caliban. After Caliban tried to rape Miranda, Prospero was forced to enslave Caliban. Ariel was also a slave to Prospero not because he did anything wrong but simply because he owed Prospero for freeing him from Sycorax. We see here a greater force (Prospero) traveling to a foreign land, and the greater force taking over the native, weaker force (Ariel and Caliban) and imposing their rule upon the native people. This is what is seen in this play.
There are strong indications that William Shakespeare wrote The Tempest as a serious representation of colonialism, particularly pertaining to the idea and degrees of colonization involving Ariel, Caliban, and Prospero. Ariel and his spritely friends were the original natives of the island considering that no one other than them had been on it. Then Caliban and his mother Sycorax came upon the island and imprisoned Ariel. Then Prospero and Miranda, his daughter, arrived and made both Ariel and Caliban his slaves. At first though, one could not call them slaves necessarily, for Prospero treated both Ariel and Caliban very well. For example, in return for showing him the island and the best places to get food and water, Prospero taught Caliban language and basically everything else he knew. Also, the only reason Ariel was under Prospero's control was because Prospero had freed him from Caliban. Anyway, while Ariel's status of servitude remains consistent throughout the play, Caliban's is not after he tries to rape Miranda. After this event, Caliban becomes the stereotypical imprisoned slave of the colonial times. It should also be noted that in terms of description, Caliban and Ariel are depicted as opposites. While Ariel is seen as a noble savage type, in the sense of helping colonists for benefits, Caliban is looked upon as a dirty, evil, and rotten creature that one could not describe as human. This is a commentary on how differing cultures of the same land might approach or view the colonists, deciding between helping them or scorning them. Both ideas heavily symbolize the colonial time period of which Shakespeare was writing in.
I find The Tempist to be a satire if I have to choose between that categorization or a serious representation of colonialism. Certain things in the text are very humorous, like many of Shakespeare’s plays. Many events in the play are just too comical to be taken very seriously. An example of this is when Antonio and Sebastian plot to kill Alonso in his sleep. When Alonso wakes up, the two men are holding swords over his body. Sebastian says, “ whiles we stood here securing your repose, even now, we heard a hollow burst of bellowing” (35). This lie that Sebastian weaves that he and Antonio were protecting the king from a scary noise when they were in fact trying to kill him is unbelievable. It makes Alonso look very naïve, and the whole set up is so comedic. Ariel’s character is also satirical. It is very funny that he is constantly guiding and tricking the nobles that landed on the island at Prospero’s command. When he gets the other spirits to put on a show and then takes it away, this is very playful and unrealistic. Shakespeare does allow one’s mind to travel in ways other writers cannot, and though this is entertaining, it is a little too much comedic to be considered a serious representation of colonialism. The drunken episode with Stephano, Trinculo, and Caliban in the fourth act is also extremely comedic and unbelievable. This is not a true representation of colonialism.
I think Shakespeare's play, The Tempest, was a serious representation of colonialism at the time. I believe that, from a playwriter's point of view, he had to make The Tempest somewhat funny, or no one would go see it. Using the text and our discussions in class, I think it is impossible to think of The Tempest as anything but a serious representation of colonialism. The way he portrays Arial as a slave, Caliban as an inferior being, the "colonizers" as drunk fools, and Prospero as an character who must ask for forgiveness at the end of the play can lead me only to this conclusion.
I think that if we go with the theme of colonization, there are definitely characters that fill the roles of colonizers and the colonized. I don't, however, think that this means that the play must be a serious representation. I think that Shakespeare is using certain characters, like Prospero, as an example of the "right" or "proper" way to colonize. He starts by using Caliban as an advantage on the island, then treats him as a slave after he realizes their morals are not aligned, and then, finally, lets Calbian free at the end of the play. While he does this, he is able to show how foolish some of the other characters look who didn't evolve like Prospero.
I think that this play could be a satyrical representation of the colonization going on in Shakespeare's time. While there are characters that represent savages and colonizers, their acts are totally foolish and made fun of throughout the play. I think the satire lies not in the act of colonization itself but the humans involved. Shakespeare makes fun of the drunk nobles on the island when their proclaimed "King of the Island", something that colonizers would dub themselves after reaching shore of a new colony. He also exaggerates the amazement which the "colonizers" have with Caliban. After reading the Canibal essay, Shakespeare was familiar with the idea that these native people have their own way of life and culture, so that is why I think this is a satyrical commentary instead of serious one.
I agree about the portrayal of Caliban. Shakespeare had been exposed to the idea that the savages weren't as savage as people thought, so it seems odd that he'd be serious about making Caliban so inhuman and animalistic. The drunks I especially agree with. There's nothing serious about them at all, and Caliban views them as gods and kings even though the reader can obviously see they aren't noble or even intelligent.
The reason I still believe that The Tempest is not a satire is because like I stated before this play is a tragicomic. While the play does seem very playful at times, the play is supposed to have a cheerful side to it and not a dark as a tragedy. This playfulness is not to cover the serious meaning behind it. The overall meaning still maintains is meaning. In songs (especially in the modern era), the song may have a silly dance, goofy lyrics, and/ or funky soundtrack, but the real underlying meaning of the song is usually something serious about politics, poverty, and/or some other of serious pressing matter. For example, during the Vietnam War era, artists were writing anti-war songs. However, the majority of the songs were fun, upbeat, and “party” songs. The songs did not sound or appear to be as serious as the issue it was talking about. This is what I believe Shakespeare is doing in this play.
I believe that The Tempest was a serious representation of colonialism. First off, this play was written during the end of Shakespeare’s life when he was writing more romantic and tragicomic (tragedy plays with a cheerful ending). Shakespeare by this time in his career was not writing anymore comic plays. The Tempest after reading it falls right into the tragicomic plays. Then just from a textual stand point, there is Ariel and Caliban who are both seen as natives of the island, and Prospero is seen as the explorer/ colonist of the island. While Ariel was the first one on this island, Caliban and Ariel are both seen in the eyes of the colonist as a native because they are seen to be savage (not so much Ariel), uneducated and unsophisticated, and uncivilized. Caliban is a more the iconic savage in this play because he is crude, tries to rape, and is always characterized as some sort of beast. However, Ariel has to characterized as a native as well because he was on the island first even before Caliban. While he does not have much characteristics of Caliban, he must just as well be called a native. Thus when Prospero came to the new land, he tried to civilize Caliban. After Caliban tried to rape Miranda, Prospero was forced to enslave Caliban. Ariel was also a slave to Prospero not because he did anything wrong but simply because he owed Prospero for freeing him from Sycorax. We see here a greater force (Prospero) traveling to a foreign land, and the greater force taking over the native, weaker force (Ariel and Caliban) and imposing their rule upon the native people. This is what is seen in this play.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThere are strong indications that William Shakespeare wrote The Tempest as a serious representation of colonialism, particularly pertaining to the idea and degrees of colonization involving Ariel, Caliban, and Prospero. Ariel and his spritely friends were the original natives of the island considering that no one other than them had been on it. Then Caliban and his mother Sycorax came upon the island and imprisoned Ariel. Then Prospero and Miranda, his daughter, arrived and made both Ariel and Caliban his slaves. At first though, one could not call them slaves necessarily, for Prospero treated both Ariel and Caliban very well. For example, in return for showing him the island and the best places to get food and water, Prospero taught Caliban language and basically everything else he knew. Also, the only reason Ariel was under Prospero's control was because Prospero had freed him from Caliban. Anyway, while Ariel's status of servitude remains consistent throughout the play, Caliban's is not after he tries to rape Miranda. After this event, Caliban becomes the stereotypical imprisoned slave of the colonial times.
ReplyDeleteIt should also be noted that in terms of description, Caliban and Ariel are depicted as opposites. While Ariel is seen as a noble savage type, in the sense of helping colonists for benefits, Caliban is looked upon as a dirty, evil, and rotten creature that one could not describe as human. This is a commentary on how differing cultures of the same land might approach or view the colonists, deciding between helping them or scorning them. Both ideas heavily symbolize the colonial time period of which Shakespeare was writing in.
I find The Tempist to be a satire if I have to choose between that categorization or a serious representation of colonialism. Certain things in the text are very humorous, like many of Shakespeare’s plays. Many events in the play are just too comical to be taken very seriously. An example of this is when Antonio and Sebastian plot to kill Alonso in his sleep. When Alonso wakes up, the two men are holding swords over his body. Sebastian says, “ whiles we stood here securing your repose, even now, we heard a hollow burst of bellowing” (35). This lie that Sebastian weaves that he and Antonio were protecting the king from a scary noise when they were in fact trying to kill him is unbelievable. It makes Alonso look very naïve, and the whole set up is so comedic.
ReplyDeleteAriel’s character is also satirical. It is very funny that he is constantly guiding and tricking the nobles that landed on the island at Prospero’s command. When he gets the other spirits to put on a show and then takes it away, this is very playful and unrealistic. Shakespeare does allow one’s mind to travel in ways other writers cannot, and though this is entertaining, it is a little too much comedic to be considered a serious representation of colonialism. The drunken episode with Stephano, Trinculo, and Caliban in the fourth act is also extremely comedic and unbelievable. This is not a true representation of colonialism.
I think Shakespeare's play, The Tempest, was a serious representation of colonialism at the time. I believe that, from a playwriter's point of view, he had to make The Tempest somewhat funny, or no one would go see it. Using the text and our discussions in class, I think it is impossible to think of The Tempest as anything but a serious representation of colonialism. The way he portrays Arial as a slave, Caliban as an inferior being, the "colonizers" as drunk fools, and Prospero as an character who must ask for forgiveness at the end of the play can lead me only to this conclusion.
ReplyDeleteI think that if we go with the theme of colonization, there are definitely characters that fill the roles of colonizers and the colonized. I don't, however, think that this means that the play must be a serious representation. I think that Shakespeare is using certain characters, like Prospero, as an example of the "right" or "proper" way to colonize. He starts by using Caliban as an advantage on the island, then treats him as a slave after he realizes their morals are not aligned, and then, finally, lets Calbian free at the end of the play. While he does this, he is able to show how foolish some of the other characters look who didn't evolve like Prospero.
DeleteI think that this play could be a satyrical representation of the colonization going on in Shakespeare's time. While there are characters that represent savages and colonizers, their acts are totally foolish and made fun of throughout the play. I think the satire lies not in the act of colonization itself but the humans involved. Shakespeare makes fun of the drunk nobles on the island when their proclaimed "King of the Island", something that colonizers would dub themselves after reaching shore of a new colony. He also exaggerates the amazement which the "colonizers" have with Caliban. After reading the Canibal essay, Shakespeare was familiar with the idea that these native people have their own way of life and culture, so that is why I think this is a satyrical commentary instead of serious one.
ReplyDeleteI agree about the portrayal of Caliban. Shakespeare had been exposed to the idea that the savages weren't as savage as people thought, so it seems odd that he'd be serious about making Caliban so inhuman and animalistic. The drunks I especially agree with. There's nothing serious about them at all, and Caliban views them as gods and kings even though the reader can obviously see they aren't noble or even intelligent.
DeleteThe reason I still believe that The Tempest is not a satire is because like I stated before this play is a tragicomic. While the play does seem very playful at times, the play is supposed to have a cheerful side to it and not a dark as a tragedy. This playfulness is not to cover the serious meaning behind it. The overall meaning still maintains is meaning. In songs (especially in the modern era), the song may have a silly dance, goofy lyrics, and/ or funky soundtrack, but the real underlying meaning of the song is usually something serious about politics, poverty, and/or some other of serious pressing matter. For example, during the Vietnam War era, artists were writing anti-war songs. However, the majority of the songs were fun, upbeat, and “party” songs. The songs did not sound or appear to be as serious as the issue it was talking about. This is what I believe Shakespeare is doing in this play.
ReplyDelete